James I, from The True
Law of Free Monarchies; or, The Reciprocal
and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His
Natural Subjects
>>note 1

The
True Law of Free Monarchies sets forth
James's philosophy of royal absolutism
and its divine sanction, setting the terms
for new disputes about sovereignty, divine
right, and the role of parliaments and
subjects. As King of Scotland, James published
it there in 1598, then reissued it upon
his accession to the throne of England
in 1603. In 1616 he published it again,
with others of his works of poetry and
political theory in a handsome folio edition,
claiming thereby the role of author-king,
a new Solomon, setting the terms for culture
as well as politics. The image of the seated
James shown here forms the frontispiece
to that folio edition.

As there is not a thing so necessary to
be known by the people of any land, next
the knowledge of their God, as the right
knowledge of their allegiance according to
the form of government established among
them, especially in a monarchy (which form
of government, as resembling the divinity,
approacheth nearest to perfection, as all
the learned and wise men from the beginning
have agreed upon, unity being the perfection
of all things), so hath the ignorance and
(which is worse) the seduced opinion of the
multitude, blinded by them who think themselves
able to teach and instruct the ignorants,
procured the wrack and overthrow of sundry
flourishing commonwealths and heaped heavy
calamities threatening utter destruction
upon others. * * *

Kings are called gods by the prophetical
King David
>>note 2 because
they sit upon God his throne in the earth
and have the count
>>note 3 of
their administration to give unto him.
Their office is "to minister justice
and judgment to the people,"
>>note 4 as
the same David saith; "to advance the good and punish the evil," as
he likewise saith; "to establish good laws to his people and procure
obedience to the same,"
>>note 5 as
divers good kings of Judah did; "to procure the peace of the people,"
>>note 6 as
the same David saith. * * *

God commandeth Samuel to do two things:
the one, to grant the people their suit in
giving them a king; the other, to forewarn
them what some kings will do unto them, that
they may not thereafter in their grudging
and murmuring say, when they shall feel the
snares
>>note 7 here
forespoken: "We would never have had
a king of God in case when we craved him
he had let us know how we would have been
used by him, as now we find but over-late." And
this is meant by these words: "Now
therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit
yet testify unto them and show them the
manner of the king that shall rule over
them." * * *

And next, Samuel,
>>note 8 in
execution of this commandment of God, he
likewise doeth two things.

First, he declares unto them what points
of justice and equity their king will break
in his behavior unto them. And next he putteth
them out of hope that, weary as they will,
they shall not have leave to shake off that
yoke which God through their importunity
hath laid upon them. * * *

Now then, since the erection of this kingdom
and monarchy among the Jews and the law thereof
may and ought to be a pattern to all Christian
and well-founded monarchies, as being founded
by God himself, who by his oracle and out
of his own mouth gave the law thereof, what
liberty can broiling spirits and rebellious
minds claim justly to against any Christian
monarchy, since they can claim to no greater
liberty on their part nor the people of God
might have done, and no greater tyranny was
ever executed by any prince or tyrant whom
they can object nor was here forewarned to
the people of God (and yet all rebellion
countermanded unto them), if tyrannizing
over men's persons, sons, daughters,
and servants, redacting
>>note 9 noble
houses and men and women of noble blood to slavish and servile offices, and
extortion and spoil of their lands and goods to the prince's own private
use and commodity, and of his courtiers and servants, may be called a tyranny?
* * *

And under the evangel, that king whom Paul
>>note 10 bids
the Romans "obey" and serve "for
conscience's sake" was Nero,
>>note 11 that
bloody tyrant, an infamy to his age, and a monster to the world, being also
an idolatrous persecutor as the king of Babel was. If, then, idolatry and
defection from God, tyranny over their people, and persecution of the saints
for their profession's sake hindered not the spirit of God to command
his people under all highest pain to give them all due and hearty obedience
for conscience's sake, giving to Caesar that which was Caesar's and
to God that which was God's, as Christ saith,
>>note 12 and
that this practice throughout the book of God agreeth with this law, which
he made in the erection of that monarchy (as is at length before deduced),
what shameless presumption is it to any Christian people nowadays to claim
to unlawful liberty which God refused to his own peculiar and chosen people?
Shortly then, to take up in two or three sentences grounded upon all these
arguments, out of the law of God, the duty and allegiance of the people unto
their lawful king, their obedience, I say, ought to be to him as to God's
lieutenant in earth, obeying his commands in all things except directly against
God as the commands of God's minister, acknowledging him a judge set
by God over them, having power to judge them but to be judged only by God,
whom to only he must give count of his judgment, fearing him as their judge,
loving him as their father, praying for him as their protector, for his continuance,
if he be good, for his amendment, if he be wicked, following and obeying
his lawful commands, eschewing and flying his fury in his unlawful, without
resistance but by sobs and tears to God.

Kings were the authors and makers of the
laws, and not the laws of the kings. * * *
In the Parliament (which is nothing else
but the head court of the king and his vassals)
the laws are but craved by his subjects and
only made by him at their rogation
>>note 13 and
with their advice. For albeit the king
make daily statutes and ordinances, enjoining
such pains thereto as he thinks meet, without
any advice of Parliament or estates, yet
it lies in the power of no Parliament to
make any kind of law or statute without
his scepter be to it, for giving it the
force of a law. And although divers changes
have been in other countries of the blood
royal and kingly house, the kingdom being
wrest[ed] by conquest from one to another,
as in our neighbor country in England (which
was never in ours), yet the same ground
of the king's right over all the land
and subjects thereof remaineth alike in
all other free monarchies, as well as in
this. For when the Bastard of Normandy
>>note 14 came
into England and made himself king, was it not by force and with a mighty
army? Where he gave the law and took none, changed the laws, inverted the
order of government, set down the strangers, his followers, in many of the
old possessors' rooms, as at this day well appeareth a great part of
the gentlemen in England being come of the Norman blood, and their old laws,
which to this day they are ruled by, are written in his language, and not
in theirs. And yet his successors have with great happiness enjoyed the crown
to this day, whereof the like was also done by all them that conquested them
before. * * * I have said a good king will frame all his actions to be according
to the law, yet is he not bound thereto but of his good will and for good
example-giving to his subjects. * * *

And the agreement of the law of nature in
this our ground with the laws and constitutions
of God and man already alleged will, by two
similitudes, easily appear. The king towards
his people is rightly compared to a father
of children and to a head of a body composed
of divers members. For as fathers the good
princes and magistrates of the people of
God acknowledge themselves to their subjects.
And for all other well-ruled commonwealths,
the style of pater patriae>>note 15 was
ever, and is commonly, used to kings. And the proper office of a king towards
his subjects agrees very well with the office of the head towards the body
and all members thereof. For from the head, being the seat of judgment, proceedeth
the care and foresight of guiding and preventing all evil that may come to
the body or any part thereof. The head cares for the body; so doth the king
for his people. As the discourse and direction flow from the head and the
execution according thereunto belongs to the rest of the members, every one
according to their office, so it is betwixt a wise prince and his people.

And now, first for the father's part
(whose natural love to his children I described
in the first part of this my discourse, speaking
of the duty that kings owe to their subjects),
consider, I pray you, what duty his children
owe to him and whether upon any pretext whatsoever
it will not be thought monstrous and unnatural
to his sons to rise up against him, to control
him at their appetite, and, when they think
good, to slay him or to cut him off and adopt
to themselves any other they please in his
room. Or can any pretense of wickedness or
rigor on his part be a just excuse for his
children to put hand into him?
>>note 16 * * *

And for the similitude of the head and the
body, it may very well fall out that the
head will be forced to gar
>>note 17 cut
off some rotten member (as I have already
said) to keep the rest of the body in integrity;
but what state the body can be in if the
head, for any infirmity that can fall to
it, be cut off, I leave it to the reader's
judgment. * * * And if it be not lawful
to a private man to revenge his private
injury upon his private adversary (since
God hath only given the sword to the magistrate),
how much less is it lawful to the people
or any part of them (who all are but private
men, the authority being always with the
magistrate, as I have already proved) to
take upon them the use of the sword, whom
to it belongs not, against the public magistrate,
whom to only it belongeth?

Next, in place of relieving the commonwealth
out of distress (which is their only excuse
and color),
>>note 18 they
shall heap double distress and desolation
upon it; and so their rebellion shall procure
the contrary effects that they pretend
it for. For a king cannot be imagined to
be so unruly and tyrannous but the commonwealth
will be kept in better order, notwithstanding
thereof, by him than it can be by his way-taking.
>>note 19 * * *

I grant, indeed, that a wicked king is sent
by God for a curse to his people and a plague
for their sins; but that it is lawful to
them to shake off that curse at their own
hand, which God hath laid on them, that I
deny and may do so justly. Will any deny
that the king of Babel was a curse to the
people of God, as was plainly forespoken
and threatened unto them in the prophesy
of their captivity?
>>note 20 And
what was Nero to the Christian church in
his time? And yet Jeremiah and Paul (as
ye have else
>>note 21 heard)
commanded them not only to obey them but
heartily to pray for their welfare.

It is certain, then (as I have already by
the law of God sufficiently proved), that
patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment
of their lives are the only lawful means
to move God to relieve them of their heavy
curse.